On 03/28/06 at 8:54pm +0200, Anthony G. Atkielski
<anthony(_at_)atkielski(_dot_)com> wrote:
Scott Leibrand writes:
They can charge for IPv4 addresses because they're perceived to be scarce.
With IPv6 they may be able to charge for allowing me a /48 instead of a
/56 or /64, but IMO they won't be able to assign me a /128 by default and
charge me if I want a /64.
They will charge you for every address beyond one. Wait and see.
We definitely will have to see how it shapes up in the US. In Japan,
where they actually have IPv6 deployed to end users, it looks like most
ISPs are giving out /64's to home users, and /48's to business users:
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/18/docs/sigs/policy/policy-pres-tomohiro-ipv6-endusers.pdf
BTW, giving out /64s is one reason why the IPv6 address space will be
exhausted in barely more time than was required to exhaust the IPv4
address space.
Then I will switch ISPs.
They will all be doing it.
I doubt it. There are RFC's (3177) and RIR policies
(http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six54) that *require* ISPs to
allocated a /64 or larger unless "it is absolutely known that one and only
one device is connecting."
ARIN guidelines specifically require ISPs to give out larger blocks when
requested. If any ISPs try to be hard-nosed about it and give out /128's
anyway, it will be pretty easy to pressure & shame them sufficiently that
they'll feel it in the marketplace.
How? I haven't been able to pressure or shame my ISP into setting
rDNS correctly for my IP address. In fact, nobody at my ISP knows
what that means.
What is "correct" rdns? Is adsl-066-156-091-129.sip.asm.bellsouth.net
"correct"?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf